-
Lexia Core5’s Impact on Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Fluency,
Vocabulary, and
Comprehension
Vickie S. Kelly
B.S., Kansas State University, 1988
M.A., University of St. Mary, 2007
Submitted to the Graduate Department and Faculty of the School
of Education of
Baker University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of
Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership
________________________________
Sharon Zoellner, Ph.D.
Major Advisor
________________________________
Harold Frye, Ed.D.
________________________________
Randal Bagby, Ed.D.
Date Defended: August 25th, 2016
Copyright 2016 Vickie Kelly
-
ii
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect Lexia
Core5 had on first,
second, and third grade students’ development of foundational
reading skills; phonemic
awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension
reading scores. Another
purpose was to learn if the amount of time students logged
online while using Lexia
Core5 impacted first, second, and third grade students’ academic
gain scores in
foundational reading skills. The final purpose of this study was
to provide decision
makers in the educational community with information about the
contributions of Lexia
Core5 on reading development.
Data from first, second, and third grade students were collected
from Renaissance
STAR Early Literacy and STAR Reading Enterprise assessments in
order to calculate
student academic gain in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency,
vocabulary, and
comprehension skills after using the Lexia Core5 program for the
2013-2014 school year.
An academic gain was calculated by subtracting the student’s
reading skills pre-test score
from the post-test score. The minutes students logged online
while using Lexia Core5
were compiled in a report produced from the Lexia Learning
Company. There were four
categories of time spent online for each grade level. The
categories were used in
conjunction with student phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency,
vocabulary, and
comprehension academic gain scores to determine the effect of
time on first, second, and
third grade students’ reading skills development
Data revealed that Lexia Core5 yielded statistically significant
growth in
phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and
comprehension for first grade
students. The data also showed students in second and third
grade had significant growth
-
iii
in phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. A deeper
analysis of the results
revealed time was a factor in first, second, and third grade
students’ academic gain
scores. The results indicated first grade students’ academic
gain scores in phonemic
awareness, phonics, vocabulary, and comprehension skills were
impacted by the amount
of time students logged online while using Lexia Core5. Time was
not a factor in first
grade students’ fluency academic gain scores. In addition,
second grade students’
phonics and comprehension academic gain scores were impacted by
time, but time was
not a factor in their fluency and vocabulary academic gain
scores. Further analysis
revealed third grade students’ academic gain scores in phonics,
vocabulary, fluency, and
comprehension skills were not impacted by the amount of time
students used the
program.
-
iv
Dedication
I dedicate my work to my family who believed in me every step of
the way. My
husband’s continuous support, encouragement, and constant
companionship along this
journey was priceless. I am grateful for my daughters Shancy and
Kari, and my son,
Javen, whose constant support and humor along this journey
helped in so many ways. I
am forever blessed by a mother who instilled in me a solid
foundation to believe with
God all things are possible.
-
v
Acknowledgements
This experience has been a long journey but one of great
learning. My
accomplishments along the way would not have been possible
without the support and
help of important people in my professional and personal
world.
I wish to thank Dr. Sharon Zoellner from the depths of my heart
for her endless
dedication, time, and guidance on this journey. She has been a
thoughtful and caring
advisor. I also wish to thank Dr. Phillip Messner for his
willingness to help me learn and
understand statistics. I have gained much knowledge from both,
and I am very thankful
for all their support. I wish to thank Dr. Randy Bagby who
believed in me and supported
my professional endeavors. He helped me achieve more than I knew
was possible.
A special acknowledgment to my husband, Kyle, who sat with me
countless days
and nights working beside me, encouraging me to keep going. In
addition, I wish to
thank Tera and Chris for our numerous workout sessions that gave
me the support I
needed to continue to the finish line.
-
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract
...............................................................................................................................
ii
Dedication
..........................................................................................................................
iv
Acknowledgements
..............................................................................................................v
List of Tables
.......................................................................................................................x
Chapter One: Introduction and Rationale
............................................................................1
Background
..............................................................................................................2
Statement of Problem
...............................................................................................3
Purpose of Study
......................................................................................................3
Significance of Study
...............................................................................................4
Delimitations
............................................................................................................5
Assumptions
.............................................................................................................6
Research Questions
..................................................................................................6
Definition of
Terms..................................................................................................7
Overview of Methodology
......................................................................................9
Organization of Study
............................................................................................11
Chapter Two: Review of Literature
...................................................................................13
National Reading
Panel..........................................................................................15
Five Reading Skills Identified by NRP
..................................................................18
Phonemic Awareness
.................................................................................18
Phonics
.......................................................................................................20
Fluency
.......................................................................................................22
Vocabulary
.................................................................................................24
Comprehension
..........................................................................................25
-
vii
Factors that Affect Reading Skills of Students
......................................................26
Teachers
.....................................................................................................26
More Instructional Time
............................................................................28
Student
Characteristics...............................................................................29
Teaching Methods
......................................................................................30
Federal Initiatives to Improve Reading Instruction………………………
...........32
Reading Excellence Act
.............................................................................32
No Child Left Behind and Reading First Initiative
....................................33
Scientifically based Reading Interventions
............................................................36
Computer Assisted Instruction
...............................................................................37
Lexia Core5
............................................................................................................38
Summary
................................................................................................................43
Chapter Three: Methods
....................................................................................................45
Research
Design.....................................................................................................45
Population
..............................................................................................................47
Sampling Procedures
.............................................................................................48
Instrumentation
......................................................................................................48
Measurement
..............................................................................................51
STAR Early Literacy Enterprise
................................................................51
Validity and Reliability
..............................................................................51
STAR Reading Enterprise
..........................................................................53
Validity and Reliability
..............................................................................53
Lexia Core5
...............................................................................................54
-
viii
Data Collection Procedures
....................................................................................55
Data Analysis and Hypothesis Tests
......................................................................56
Limitations
.............................................................................................................66
Summary
................................................................................................................67
Chapter Four: Results
........................................................................................................68
Descriptive Statistics
..............................................................................................68
Hypothesis
Testing.................................................................................................68
Summary
..............................................................................................................101
Chapter Five: Interpretations and Recommendations
......................................................102
Study Summary
....................................................................................................102
Overview of the Problem
.........................................................................103
Purpose Statement and Research Questions
............................................103
Review of Methodology
..........................................................................104
Major Findings
.........................................................................................105
Findings Related to the
Literature........................................................................106
Conclusions
..........................................................................................................108
Implications for Action
............................................................................108
Recommendations for Future Research
...................................................110
Concluding Remarks
................................................................................111
References
........................................................................................................................112
Appendixes
......................................................................................................................133
Appendix A. Permission Request to Conduct Research
......................................134
Appendix B. Approval to Conduct Research
.......................................................135
-
ix
Appendix C. IRB
Request....................................................................................136
Appendix D. IRB Approval
.................................................................................140
-
x
List of Tables
Table 1. Categories of Minutes Logged Online
.................................................................47
Table 2. Summary for Methodology RQ1
.........................................................................58
Table 3. Summary for Methodology RQ2
.........................................................................60
Table 4. Summary for Methodology RQ3
.........................................................................62
Table 5. Summary for Methodology RQ4, Second Grade Data
........................................64
Table 6. Summary for Methodology RQ4, Third Grade Data
...........................................66
Table 7. First Grade Phonemic Awareness t-Test Results
.................................................70
Table 8. First Grade Phonemic Awareness Descriptives
...................................................70
Table 9. First Grade Phonics t-Test
Results......................................................................71
Table 10. First Grade Phonics Descriptives
.......................................................................71
Table 11. First Grade Fluency t-Test Results
....................................................................72
Table 12. First Grade Fluency Descriptives
......................................................................72
Table 13. First Grade Vocabulary t-Test
Results...............................................................73
Table 14. First Grade Vocabulary Descriptives
.................................................................73
Table 15. First Grade Comprehension t-Test Results
........................................................74
Table 16. First Grade Comprehension Descriptives
..........................................................74
Table 17. Second Grade Phonics t-Test Results
................................................................75
Table 18. Second Grade Phonics Descriptives
..................................................................76
Table 19. Second Grade Fluency t-Test Results
................................................................76
Table 20. Second Grade Fluency Descriptives
..................................................................77
Table 21. Second Grade Vocabulary t-Test Results
..........................................................77
Table 22. Second Grade Vocabulary Descriptives
............................................................78
-
xi
Table 23. Second Grade Comprehension t-Test Results
...................................................79
Table 24. Second Grade Comprehension Descriptives
......................................................79
Table 25. Third Grade Phonics t-Test Results
...................................................................80
Table 26. Third Grade Phonics Descriptives
.....................................................................80
Table 27. Third Grade Fluency t-Test Results
...................................................................81
Table 28. Third Grade Fluency Descriptives
.....................................................................81
Table 29. Third Grade Vocabulary t-Test Results
.............................................................82
Table 30. Third Grade Vocabulary Descriptives
...............................................................82
Table 31. Third Grade Comprehension t-Test Results
......................................................83
Table 32. Third Grade Comprehension Descriptives
........................................................83
Table 33. Summary for Methodology RQ3
.......................................................................84
Table 34. First Grade Description for Phonemic Awareness
............................................85
Table 35. First Grade Phonemic Awareness Time Categories
..........................................86
Table 36. First Grade Descriptive for
Phonics...................................................................87
Table 37. First Grade Phonics Time Categories
................................................................88
Table 38. First Grade Descriptives for Fluency
.................................................................89
Table 39. First Grade Descriptives for Vocabulary
...........................................................89
Table 40. First Grade Vocabulary Time Categories
..........................................................90
Table 41. First Grade Descriptives for Comprehension
....................................................91
Table 42. First Grade Comprehension Time Categories
...................................................92
Table 43. Summary for Methodology RQ4
.......................................................................93
Table 44. Second Grade Descriptives for Phonics
.............................................................94
Table 45. Second Grade Phonics Time Categories
............................................................95
-
xii
Table 46. Second Grade Descriptives for Fluency
............................................................96
Table 47. Second Grade Descriptives for Vocabulary
.......................................................96
Table 48. Second Grade Descriptives for Comprehension
................................................97
Table 49. Second Grade Comprehension Time Categories
...............................................98
Table 50. Third Grade Descriptives for Phonics
...............................................................99
Table 51. Third Grade Descriptives for Fluency
...............................................................99
Table 52. Third Grade Descriptives for Vocabulary
.......................................................100
Table 53. Third Grade Descriptives for Comprehension
.................................................101
-
1
Chapter One
Introduction
According to the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development
(NICHD), reading is the single most important skill necessary
for a happy, productive,
and successful life (Hoss, 2016). Connors-Tadors (2014) defined
reading as the ability to
interpret and understand written words on a page. The ability to
read enables people to
find out more about the world and to use that information to
improve their lives. Readers
have the potential to be lifelong learners, enabling them to
think critically about what
they have read, to make decisions based on that information, and
to make connections to
their own lives. Reading affects school success, earning
potential, and the ability to
function well in every-day living.
The skill of reading is critical to academic learning and
success in school (Lyon,
2002). Students who are competent readers are more likely to
perform well in other
subjects such as mathematics and science (Carnine & Carnine,
2004; Hyde, 2007).
Mathematics, social studies, and science are vital for academic
and intellectual
development, but learning specific information relevant to these
disciplines is difficult for
a non-reader (Lyon, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 2003). Two studies
by the Anne E. Casey
Foundation provided evidence of a strong relationship between
early reading ability and
later academic achievement (Fiester 2010, 2013). Successful
academic achievement
allows students to graduate from high school.
The ability to read is fundamental and an essential foundation
for advancement in
education, personal economics, and functionality. Reading skills
help individuals
accomplish everyday tasks needed to make informed choices and
participate fully in daily
-
2
living. Tasks such as reading a sign, reading medicine labels or
nutritional labels on food
products, and filling out job applications may be difficult for
those individuals with
limited reading skills (Cree, Kay, & Stewart, 2012).
Background
Grade-level reading proficiency by the end of third grade is a
high priority of
government officials and educational leaders (Hayes, Bhat,
Connors-Tadros, & Martinez,
2011). Kansas Governor Sam Brownback committed to grade level
reading proficiency
by launching the Kansas Reading Initiative (KRI) aimed at
boosting reading proficiency
for elementary school children (Ranney, 2013a). The 2013 Kansas
Legislative session
passed HB 2140 (Kansas Reads to Succeed Act) that funded the KRI
with six million
dollars a year for two years. The bill was designed to support
grade level reading
proficiency by giving schools access to an instructional
software package called Lexia
Core5 (Ranney, 2013b). Lexia Core5 (Lexia Learning Systems,
2013) was selected by
the KRI to be incorporated into Kansas elementary schools
without cost for students in
kindergarten through fifth grades for the 2013-2014 and
2014-2015 school years.
There were 11,000 Kansas elementary students in kindergarten
through fifth
grade who used Lexia Core5 during the 2013-2014 school year.
Officials from the Lexia
Learning Company reported the percentage of students working at
or above grade level
increased from forty-five percent to ninety-four percent during
the school year and
seventy percent of students met end-of-year grade level
benchmarks (Lexia Learning
Systems, 2013). According to the 2014 report from the KRI (Lexia
Learning Systems,
2014), nineteen percent of the students in first through fifth
grades in Kansas began the
school year two or more years below grade level in reading and
were considered at-risk
-
3
of reading failure. By the end of the 2014 school year
seventy-two percent of the
students finished the school year above grade level in reading
and had mastered more
than two years’ growth in foundational reading skills. At-risk
students showed the most
growth advancing one or more grade levels by the end of the
school year. Eighty-seven
percent of at-risk students advanced two or more grade levels
and ninety-nine percent of
at-risk students advanced at least one grade level in the
2013-2014 school year (Lexia
Learning Systems, 2014).
Statement of Problem
Lexia Core5 was developed as an improved version of an earlier
educational
technology-based program called Lexia Reading (Schechter,
Macaruso, Kazakoff &
Brooke, 2015). The primary focus of Lexia Reading was to build
phonological
awareness and word attack skills (Macaruso and Walker, 2008;
Macaruso & Rodman,
2011). According to the Lexia Learning Company, Lexia Core5
provides explicit,
systematic instruction and practice in five foundational reading
skills. The research on
the benefits of Lexia Core5, specifically its impact on the five
foundational reading skills
of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and
comprehension (Crawford-
Brooke, Macaruso, & Schechter, 2014) is minimal. In order to
address the problem of
limited research on the impact of Lexia Core5 on reading skills
development more
research is needed.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to examine Lexia Core5 assessment
data from the
2013-2014 school year to discern whether first grade student
usage of the Lexia Core5
program supported growth in phonemic awareness, phonics,
fluency, vocabulary, and
-
4
comprehension reading skills. Another purpose was to determine
if usage of the program
contributed to second and third grade student growth in phonics,
fluency, vocabulary, and
comprehension reading skills. Additionally, the study examined
first, second, and third
grade students’ time logged online in Lexia Core5’s effect on
foundational reading skills
academic gain scores. The final purpose of this study was to
provide the Kansas
Legislature and school leaders’ information about the
contributions of Lexia Core5 on
reading development. Decision makers may find the outcomes of
this study useful in
ascertaining if Lexia Core5 is a viable instructional tool for
the KRI and an effective use
of resources.
Significance of Study
This study provided information about the effects of Lexia Core5
program on first
grade students’ foundational reading skill development of
phonemic awareness, phonics,
fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension and the effects of the
program on second and
third grade students’ reading skill development of phonics,
fluency, vocabulary and
comprehension. Multiple Lexia Reading studies were reported with
positive outcomes
(Macaruso, Hook & McCabe, 2006; Macaruso & Rodman, 2011;
Macaruso & Walker,
2008). However, limited research was found on Lexia Core5’s
efficacy on student
development of foundational skills as opposed to over-all
reading skills (Crawford-
Brooke et al., 2014).
The results from a published Lexia Core5 study, indicated
elementary students’
use of the program promoted growth in two of the five
foundational reading skills,
reading comprehension and vocabulary (Lexia Learning Systems,
2014). Crawford-
Brooke et al. (2014) established first and second grade students
had significant gains in
-
5
reading comprehension. Juarez-Tillery (2015) found third grade
students had
improvements in comprehension skills after using the program for
20 weeks. The present
study adds to the information about Lexia Core5’s impact on the
five foundational
reading skills.
Another significance of the current study was the supportive
evidence it added to
instructional software in the field of reading. It addressed the
claims that students made
adequate grade level progress on the foundational reading skills
if students used the
program the proper amount of minutes suggested by the Lexia
Core5 Company. This
information is significant in discerning the effectiveness of
this software package as a
supplemental reading program in a school setting.
Delimitations
Delimitations are boundaries on the purpose and scope of the
study set by the
researcher (Lunenburg & Irby, 2008). Included in this study
are the following
delimitations:
This research study was limited to students in first, second,
and third grades,
enrolled in a Kansas elementary school during the 2013 – 2014
school year.
The study was limited to first grade students with pre- and
post-test scores on
the STAR Early Literacy Enterprise assessment.
The study was limited to second and third grade students with
pre- and post-
test scores on the STAR Reading Enterprise assessment.
-
6
Assumptions
Assumptions are postulates, premises, and propositions that are
accepted as
operational for purposes of the research (Lunenburg & Irby,
2008). Assumptions
regarding this study were as follows:
All teachers followed the stated guidelines of the Lexia Core5
program.
All teachers received initial and on-going professional
development to support
the proper implementation of the program.
All students worked attentively while logged online in the Lexia
Core5
program.
Renaissance STAR Reading assessments were administered following
the
proper protocol based upon the manufacturer’s instructions and
the school’s
guidelines.
All students put forth the effort needed to complete the
assessments to the best
of their ability.
Research Questions
The research questions focus and serve as the “directional beam
for the study”
(Lunenburg & Irby, 2008 p. 126). The following research
questions were developed as a
guide for this study.
RQ1. To what extent did first grade students demonstrate
academic gain in
phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and
comprehension as measured by
the STAR Early Literacy Enterprise pre- and post-test assessment
scores, after one year
of enrollment in Lexia Core5?
-
7
RQ2. To what extent did second and third grade students
demonstrate academic
gain in phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension as
measured by the STAR
Reading Enterprise pre- and post-test assessment scores, after
one year of enrollment in
Lexia Core5?
RQ3. Was first grade student academic gain in phonemic
awareness, phonics,
fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension scores as measured by the
difference between
STAR Early Literacy Enterprise pre- and post-test assessment
scores impacted by
duration of time when categorized by the minutes students logged
online in the Lexia
Core5 program?
RQ4. Was second and third grade student academic gain in
phonics, fluency,
vocabulary, and comprehension scores as measured by the
difference between STAR
Reading Enterprise pre- and post-test assessment scores impacted
by duration of time
when categorized by the minutes students logged online in the
Lexia Core5 program?
Definition of Terms
The following definitions were used for the purpose of this
study.
Comprehension. Comprehension is the construction of the meaning
of a written
text through a reciprocal interchange of ideas between the
reader and the message in a
particular text (NRP, 2000).
Criterion-referenced Reading Scores. These scores are a
measurement of
student performance against predetermined criteria (Renaissance
Learning, 2014b).
Fluency. Fluency is the ability to read a text quickly,
accurately, and with proper
expression (NRP, 2000).
-
8
Foundational skills. In the Lexia Core5 program, the
foundational skills include
print concepts, phonics and word recognition, and fluency, which
is similar to the
Reading Foundational Skills defined by Common Core State
Standards (Lexia Learning
Systems, 2013).
Grade Equivalency. A Grade Equivalent (GE) score indicates the
grade
placement of students for whom a particular score is typical. If
a student receives a GE
of 10.7, this means the student scored as well on STAR Reading
Enterprise Assessment
as did the typical student in the seventh month of grade 10
taking the same test
(Renaissance Learning, 2016).
Graphemes. This refers to the units of written language that
represent phonemes
in the spelling of words. Examples include single letters, such
as P, T, N, or multiple
letters, CH, SH, TH, CK, or IGH, each symbolizing one phoneme
(NRP, 2000).
Norm-referenced Reading Scores. Norm-referenced reading scores
compare and
rank students to similar students who took the same test
(Renaissance Learning, 2014b).
Phonemes. This refers to the smallest units constituting spoken
language.
English consists of 41 phonemes. Phonemes combine to form
syllables and words.
Examples of phonemes are a or oh, which is one phoneme; go
includes two phonemes;
check includes three; and stop has four phonemes (NRP,
2000).
Phonemic awareness. This refers to the ability to focus on and
manipulate
phonemes in spoken words (NRP, 2000).
Phonics. This refers to the understanding that there is a
predictable relationship
between phonemes and graphemes (NRP, 2000).
-
9
Rasch Ability. Rasch ability is a summary measure of a student’s
ability in
literacy skills that is assessed by the STAR Early Literacy
Enterprise (Renaissance
Learning, 2014a).
Reading Foundational Skills. Reading Foundational Skills are
defined by the
CCSS, which are directed toward fostering students’
understanding and working
knowledge of concepts of print, the alphabetic principle, and
other basic conventions of
the English writing system (Common Core State Standards
Initiative, 2010).
Renaissance STAR Early Literacy Enterprise Assessment. STAR
Early
Literacy Enterprise is a computer assessment instrument designed
to measure the early
literacy skills of beginning readers (Renaissance Learning,
2014a).
Renaissance STAR Reading Enterprise Assessment. This assessment
is a
computer assessment that provides immediate feedback to teachers
and administrators
about students’ reading development along with reports about a
wide range of discrete
reading skills (Renaissance Learning, 2014b).
Scaled Scores. Scaled Scores are a non-linear, monotonic
transformation of the
Rasch ability estimate resulting from the STAR Early Literacy
Enterprise assessment.
The scaled scores range from 300 to 900 (Renaissance Learning,
2014a.)
Vocabulary. Vocabulary is understanding the meaning of
individual words
(NPR, 2000).
Overview of Methodology
Archived data of first, second, and third grade students’ from a
Kansas elementary
school during the 2013-2014 school year were used to answer the
research questions.
The purposive sample size was 573 first, second, and third grade
students enrolled at the
-
10
elementary school (Kansas State Department of Education, 2014).
All students were
expected to use the Lexia Core5 program during the 2013-2014
school year.
The first two research questions were answered using first,
second, and third
grade student data generated from the Renaissance Learning
assessments. Students in
first grade were evaluated using the STAR Early Literacy
Enterprise assessment to
calculate academic gain scores for phonemic awareness, phonics,
fluency, vocabulary,
and comprehension reading skills. Students in the second and
third grades were
evaluated using the Renaissance STAR Reading Enterprise
assessment to evaluate
academic gain scores for phonics, fluency, comprehension, and
vocabulary skills. All
students were given a pre-test in August 2013 and a post-test in
May 2014. Academic
gain scores were calculated by subtracting the pre-test from the
post-test for each of the
foundational reading skills of the individual students.
The data for the assessments were retrieved from the Renaissance
reports titled
Student Diagnostic Report Enterprise Test. The diagnostic report
for second and third
grade students showed phonological awareness and phonics as one
component under
Reading Foundations. Phonemic awareness scores were not reported
for students who
exceeded the skill expectation on the phonemic awareness portion
of the STAR Reading
assessments.
The last two research questions were analyzed using student data
generated from
Lexia Learning Company. The Lexia Learning Company produced a
report that included
information about the amount of time, measured in minutes,
students were logged online
with the Lexia Core5 program during the 2013-2014 school year.
The information was
-
11
used to compare minutes to student academic gain scores in
phonemic awareness,
phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.
All data used for research questions one through four were
analyzed, compiled,
and organized in an Excel spreadsheet by the researcher. The
data were transferred into
the Just Another Statistical Program (JASP), (JASP, 2016) for
analysis. The independent
variable was Lexia Core5 scores and the amount of time students
logged online in the
Lexia Core5 program. The dependent variables were academic gain
scores in phonemic
awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension
scores.
Organization of Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter one includes
an overview of
the study, consisting of statement of the problem, significance
of the study, a rationale for
the study, delimitations and assumptions, research questions,
and an overview of
methodology. Chapter two encompasses a historical description of
the National Reading
Panel (NRP), (2000) along with a description of the five reading
skills identified by the
NRP, and factors that affect students learning to read. Federal
initiatives designed to
improve reading instruction, and an explanation of
scientifically based reading
interventions are included. Chapter two concludes with
information about computer
assisted instruction, the development of Lexia Learning Systems
(2013), and literature
summary. A detailed account of the methodology, including
information about the
population, data collection and analysis procedures are
presented in chapter three.
Further details defined in chapter three are research questions
as well as an explanation of
reliability and validity of the assessment tools, STAR Early
Literacy and STAR Reading
Enterprise. The data analysis for each question are reported in
chapter four. Finally,
-
12
chapter five includes a summary and discussion of the findings,
implications for action
based on study results, and recommendations for further research
based on the results
from this study.
-
13
Chapter Two
Review of the Literature
This chapter provides a review of the literature on reading
development. It
includes a description of Lexia Core5’s components of phonemic
awareness, phonics,
vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency skills. Chapter two
includes information on the
findings from the National Reading Panel’s (NRP) research on the
best approach to
reading instruction and the influence United States federal
education policies have on
current education. The final section of this chapter
incorporates the discussion of
scientifically based reading interventions; computer assisted
reading tools, and the
development of the Lexia Core5 software program.
Primary students who have reading skill deficits need effective
research-based
interventions to help support growth in reading. Learning to
read proficiently has a
tremendous effect on students and their later success in life.
Learning to read proficiently
by the end of third grade is crucial, as it is a pivotal point
in a student’s education
(Hernandez, 2011). Third grade is the time students shift from
learning to read to reading
to learn. The results of a longitudinal study of 4,000 students
reported students who were
not proficient readers by the end of third grade, were four
times more likely to leave
school without a diploma than proficient readers (Hernandez,
2011). For the worst
readers, those who could not master even the basic skills by
third grade, the rate was
nearly six times greater (Hernandez, 2011). According to Spaull
(2015), aside from the
apparent cognitive importance of learning to read, children who
became novice readers
within the first three years of primary school had higher levels
of social-emotional well-
being because they expressed themselves better and communicated
with others
-
14
adequately. They were also more self-confident (Spaull, 2015).
The importance of early
intervention for those students who were at-risk for reading
failure were highlighted in
the findings.
As students move through elementary and middle school, the
distance widens
between struggling readers and successful readers. This
phenomenon is referred to as the
Matthew Effect by Stanovich (1986). According to the concept of
the Matthew Effect, as
successful readers become more proficient readers, they are
exposed to more challenging
text, while struggling readers fall behind their peers and
become less interested in
reading. This contributes to less reading and insufficient
exposure to text. An increase in
the occurrence of challenging behaviors in the classroom are
exhibited by struggling
readers as they continue into later school years (Oakes, Mathur,
& Lane, 2010; Wang &
Algozzine, 2011). Reading struggles not addressed are often
manifested in troublesome
behaviors that can hide the reading difficulties of these
readers.
Students learn to read through their knowledge of the alphabet
and using that
knowledge to decode words. Very early in the reading process
poor readers, who
experience greater difficulty in breaking the spelling-to-sound
code, begin to be exposed
to less text than more skilled readers and therefore do not get
much reading practice
(Allington, 1984). The inability to break the spelling-to-sound
code delays the poor
reader’s development of automaticity and word recognition speed,
which is foundational
for comprehension and reading for meaning (Cunningham &
Stanovich, 1998). The NRP
based its 2000 report on the important reading components of the
alphabet, decoding
words, automaticity, and comprehension. The report became one of
the most important
documents in understanding how children’s reading skills can be
improved through
-
15
systematic instruction (NRP, 2013). The NRP analysis made it
clear that the best
approach to teaching reading is one that incorporates explicit
instruction in phonemic
awareness, systematic phonics instruction, methods to improve
fluency, vocabulary, and
ways to enhance comprehension.
Reading has become the focal point for American education
policy. Policy
makers recognized the importance of reading as a fundamental
skill critical to academic
learning and success (Hernandez, 2011). In an effort to improve
learning and reading
instruction, legislators, over the past three decades, have
developed policies related to
reading instruction using scientifically based reading research.
These United States
federal education policies: the Reading Excellence Act (1999),
the No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB) (Lyon, Shaywitz, Shaywitz, & Chhabra, 2005), and
Reading First initiative
(Edmondson, 2005) have impacted the educational instructional
practices of teachers.
The outcome of these federal policies have been felt at the
classroom level and informed
teachers’ instructional practice (Juarez-Tillery, 2015).
National Reading Panel
In 1997, Congress asked the director of the NICHD to coordinate
and cooperate
with the Secretary of Education in establishing a panel to
assess effectiveness of different
approaches to reading instruction. The members of the panel were
asked to find reading
instruction that was research-based with empirical evidence. The
National Reading Panel
was given the task of assessing the various approaches to
teaching children how to read.
In 2000, the National Reading Panel conducted a meta-analysis to
review the best
evidence available to guide instruction in reading. Education
policy makers were
interested in determining a standard method that would work best
to improve the reading
-
16
skills of students. Through a meta-analysis, the researchers
found a set of questions that
would help determine an effective approach to reading
instruction. A series of regional
public hearings, helped the panel, composed of 14 members,
determine their final areas
of focus (NICHD, 2000). These questions were examined:
What are the effects of phonemic awareness instruction on
reading
achievement and improvement?
What are the effects of phonics instruction on reading
achievement and
improvement?
What are the effects of repeated readings on reading achievement
and
improvement?
What are the effects of guided oral readings on reading
achievement and
improvement?
What are the effects of wide reading programs on reading
achievement and
improvement?
What are the effects of vocabulary instruction on reading
achievement and
improvement?
What are the effects of comprehension instruction on reading
achievement and
improvement?
What are the effects of teachers’ background and education on
reading
achievement and improvement of students? (Shanahan, 1999, p.
3)
In 2000, the NRP, gathered data from experimental and
quasi-experimental
research studies and evaluated the importance of alphabetics
(phonemic awareness and
phonics), fluency, vocabulary and text comprehension, teacher
education, and technology
-
17
on the effectiveness of reading instruction (Courtade, Jimenez,
& Delano, 2014;
Torgesen, Meadows, & Howard, 2006). Studies included in the
meta-analysis were
evidence-based (Courtade, et al., 2014; Torgesen et al.,
2006).
Through this rigorous collection and analysis of data from
evidence-based studies,
the NRP (2000) was able to offer concise evidence that children
can effectively learn how
to read if teachers have undergone the appropriate training on
how to use scientifically
based instruction in their classrooms (Courtade, et al., 2014;
Torgesen et al., 2006). This
meta-analysis by the NRP offered great value to reading
instruction in the early grades.
Overall, it established a comprehensive, scientifically based
approach to reading
instruction was critical for children to achieve reading
proficiency (Courtade, et al., 2014;
Torgesen et al., 2006).
The researchers of the NRP were separated into subcommittees
based on the
specific reading skills. Subcommittee reports were summarized in
the panel’s final
product, Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children
to Read (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, 2000a). The report
prepared by the NRP was
dispersed to all school districts in America, to the National
Institute for Literacy, the U.S.
Department of Education, and the NICHD. These institutions
acknowledged the best
reading instruction should include the foundational components
of systematic and direct
instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary
development, and
comprehension strategies. Reading skills identified in the NRP
report served as the
foundation for effective reading instruction across the
nation.
-
18
Five Reading Skills Identified by NRP
Phonemic Awareness. The NRP (2000) defined phonemic awareness as
the
ability to focus on and manipulate phonemes in spoken words. The
NRP report states,
Phonemes are the smallest units constituting spoken language.
English
consists of about 41 phonemes. Phonemes combine to form
syllables and
words. A few words have only one phoneme, such as “a” or “oh.”
Most
words consist of a blend of phonemes, such as “go,” with two
phonemes,
“check,” with three phonemes, or “stop,” with four phonemes.
Phonemes
are different from graphemes, which are units of written
language and
represent phonemes in the spellings of words. Graphemes may
consist of
one letter, for example, P, T, K, A, N, or multiple letters, CH,
SH, TH, -
CK, EA, -IGH, each symbolizing one phoneme. (p. 2-1)
Phonemic awareness is the foundational skill that students need
to master early in
their academic career. It is imperative students master phonemic
awareness because it
improves a student’s ability to read words and helps students
learn to spell (NRP, 2000).
Third grade students should have mastered phonemic awareness
within the first two years
of school. Once students have mastered phonemic awareness, there
is no need to
continue instruction in this area. Many teachers use music,
poetry, and other activities
that have rhyme in the content to teach phonemic awareness.
Based on the NRP (2000)
report, daily phonemic awareness instruction in the lower
elementary grades was
recommended by the Center for the Improvement of Early Reading
Achievement, (1998)
(Ashby, Dix, Bontrager, Dey, & Archer, 2013; Nicholson,
2005; Suggate, 2016).
-
19
According to The NRP (2000), phonemic awareness instruction is
not the same as
phonics instruction. Phonemic awareness is the ability to hear
and identify individual
sounds in spoken word (U.S. Department of Education, 2003) and
it is the understanding
that spoken words are made up of phonemes or individual sounds.
Components of
phonemic awareness include phoneme isolation, segmenting, and
blending individual
sounds (Trehearne, Healy, Cantalini-Williams, & Moore,
2003). Phoneme isolation
involves identifying the first sound in a word, segmenting is
the ability to segment speech
into phonemes, and blending is the ability to put together
individual sounds to form
words (Hattie, 2009).
Children who attained phonemic awareness could hear, identify,
and manipulate
sounds in spoken language. With this ability, they became
capable of matching letters to
sounds to decode words in text or print. Reading researchers
also confirmed the
phonemic awareness skill allowed students to learn how to read
because they had the
foundation to identify words. Researchers claimed phonemic
awareness was the basic
skill students needed before they could learn phonics and begin
to learn writing (Hook &
Haynes, 2008; Rasinski & Padak, 2004 Torgesen, 2002).
Moreover, the findings from foundational studies in reading
instruction literature
indicated phonemic awareness was a predictor for early reading
success and was the
lacking component among children struggling to read (Adams,
1990). Low phonemic
awareness in first grade was the best predictor of poor reading
achievement, as children
become older (NRP, 2000). Correlational studies included in the
meta-analysis prepared
by the NRP established that phonemic awareness and letter
knowledge were the two best
school-entry indicators of how well children learn to read
during the first 2 years of their
-
20
schooling (NRP, 2000). These studies provided the scientific
basis for the importance of
phonemic awareness instruction (NRP, 2000; Courtade, et al.,
2014; Torgesen et al.,
2006).
Phonics. According to the NRP (2003), phonics is the
relationship between letters
(graphemes) of written language and individual sounds (phonemes)
of spoken language.
The study by the NRP addressed this question, “Does phonics
instruction improve
children’s ability to read and comprehend text as well as their
decoding and word-reading
skills?” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000,
pp. 2-90). Through a
meta-analysis method, the NRP used 38 studies to determine an
effect size (Camilli,
Vargas, & Yurecko, 2003; U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, 2000b). The
NRP (2000) subcommittee found phonics instruction could
positively affect the reading
comprehension skills of young readers with an effect size of
0.51, compared to students
who did not undergo phonics instruction (U.S. Department of
Health and Human
Services, 2000b).
The NRP (2000) stated in the section on phonics that systematic
phonics
instruction produced significant benefits for elementary
students and for children having
difficulty learning to read. According to the NRP (2000) phonics
subgroup report,
kindergarteners who received systematic phonics instruction
accomplished greater skill
acquisition in their ability to spell words. First graders
taught phonics systematically
were able to improve their decoding and spelling skills and made
significant progress in
their ability to comprehend text. Although older children who
received phonics
instruction improved their decoding and spelling skills and
reading text orally, their
-
21
comprehension of text did not significantly improve (Beers,
2003; U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, 2000b).
Phonics is referred to as a method of teaching reading (Eh Ehri,
Nunes, Stahl, &
Willows, 2001) and is the type of instruction about how the
sounds of speech are
represented by letters and spellings (Snow, Burns, &
Griffin, 1998). Phonics is the
awareness of the phonemic composition of words. The goal of
phonics instruction is to
help early readers understand the connection between letters and
their sounds. Phonics
instruction emphasizes the acquisition of letter-sound
relationships in order for students
to apply this knowledge to spelling patterns and learning to
read. Phonics can be taught
systematically or incidentally. Systematic phonics instruction
includes teaching phonics
in a sequential order along with an element of explicitness
depending on the type of
phonics method taught (Ehri et al., 2001). Incidental phonics
instruction does not follow
a sequence of phonics instruction but highlights different
letter-sound relationships in
words when they appear in text. Overall, the instruction of
phonics is powerful in the
process of learning to read both for reading skills and for
reading comprehension (Hattie,
2009).
Students who mastered the decoding process tend to enjoy reading
because more
time was spent on fluency and comprehension (Suggate, 2016;
Warnick & Caldarella,
2015). Children who developed competency in the decoding
processes were able to start
reading more effectively and faster than their peers (Suggate,
2016; Warnick &
Caldarella, 2015). Students with the ability to decode had an
easier time concentrating on
the meaning of a text, which contributed to a more enjoyable
reading time, compared to
children who had not mastered phonics, (Stanovich, 1986).
According to Ehri (2012) and
-
22
Weber (2014), phonics instruction should start as early as
kindergarten, occur daily over
a period of two years, and be combined with phonemic awareness
instruction.
Fluency. According to the NRP (2000) fluency is the ability to
read a text
quickly, accurately, and with proper expression. A fluent reader
can maintain the skill of
reading without practice, can generalize across texts, and can
maintain the performance
of reading over a long period of time (Sapp, 2012). Three key
components to reading
fluently are accuracy in word decoding, automaticity in
recognizing words, and
appropriate use of prosody or meaningful oral expression while
reading (Rasinski, 2016).
These three elements are a doorway to comprehension (Hudson,
Mercer, & Lane, 2000).
To make sense of what is read, readers need to decode words and
at the same time put
words together into meaningful sentences while using the
appropriate expression to make
sense of what was read.
The first component of reading fluency is the ability to read
words accurately
which involves the skill of decoding the words correctly. In
order to decode words
correctly the reader understands the alphabetic principle of
phonemic awareness and
phonics (Ehri & McCormick, 1998). Using other cues to
identify words in text and
possessing a large knowledge of high frequency words is required
for reading accuracy
(Tunmer & Chapman, 1995).
The second component of fluency is the rate words are read. This
involves
identifying individual words with speed and accuracy while
reading with fluidity. As
students practice reading, they increase their knowledge of
words. They recognize a
number of words by sight, without sounding them out. They move
through connected
text comprehending the meaning of what was read without using
contextual cues (Ehri,
-
23
2012; Share & Stanovich, 1995). Words that are recognized
automatically are described
as sight words (Kuhn & Stahl, 2000; LaBerge & Samuels,
1974). Automaticity of
reading means the student can rapidly recognize words even with
little cognitive effort,
which makes it crucial to word reading accuracy. If an intense
amount of cognitive effort
is put forth to get the word right by phonemically decoding
words or in guessing words
from context, it will be hard for readers to comprehend a text’s
meaning
(Schwanenflugel, Hamilton, Kuhn, Wisenbaker, & Stahl, 2004).
Reading rate in terms of
reading speed are measured according to the number of words that
the child can read
correctly per minute as well as the length of time it takes a
reader to read a passage.
Prosody is the third component of reading fluency and indicates
a student
understands the text. The linguistic term prosody describes the
rhythmic and tonal
aspects of speech as the "music" of oral language (Torgeson
& Hudson, 2006). Prosodic
features contribute to the expressive reading of a text which
includes three elements;
variations in pitch (intonation), stress patterns (syllable
prominence), and duration (length
of time) (Allington, 2002; Dowhower, 1991; Schreiber, 1980). A
reader is reading with
expression when intonation, syllable prominence, and duration is
used when asking
questions, portraying surprise or making exclamations in oral
reading (Hudson, Lane, &
Pullen, 2005). Prosody sounds natural and expressive (Rasinski,
2003). It is comprised
of the appropriate pausing and responses to punctuation as the
child verbalizes the words
(Rasinski, Blachowitz, & Lems, 2012).
For students to become fluent readers they must have mastered
the above skills.
Students who are fluent will not have to spend time recognizing
each letter or word.
Fluent readers spend time comprehending meaning from the text.
Students become
-
24
fluent readers by listening to good role models and practicing
(Lai, Benjamin,
Schwanenflugel, & Kuhn, 2014; Rasinski et al., 2012;
Silverman, Speece, Harring, &
Ritchey, 2013). Fluency can be enhanced when students
participate in repeated reading
and guided repeated oral reading (Rasinski et al., 2012).
Comprehension is enhanced
when a student reads fluently and smoothly (Lai et al., 2014;
Rasinski et al., 2012;
Silverman et al., 2013). National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP),
conducted a study with findings of w 44% of students with low
comprehension scores
had poor fluency skills (Pinnell, Pikuiski, Wixson, Campbell,
Gough, & Beatty1995).
Vocabulary. Vocabulary was identified and investigated by the
NRP as a
necessary component to reading instruction. Vocabulary is
defined as the knowledge of
specific word meanings (Armbruster, Lehr, Osborn, & Adler,
2009). Vocabulary
knowledge includes an awareness of the different uses of words
(Boardman et al., 2008).
Reading is dependent on a student’s oral as well as print
vocabulary. Oral vocabulary is
the ability to recognize spoken words. It is easier to attain
than print vocabulary. Print
vocabulary involves a student’s ability to recognize written
words (Armbruster et al.,
2009). The research by the NRP included both types under the
broad umbrella of
vocabulary.
Vocabulary knowledge is foundational for success in reading.
Students cannot
understand what they read without understanding what most of the
words mean. Decades
of research have confirmed the important role vocabulary plays
in reading
comprehension and in students’ overall academic success (Hiebert
& Kamil, 2005). In
early elementary grades, vocabulary instruction includes high
frequency words called
sight words (Beck, 2006). Repeated exposure to new words in
different contexts over
-
25
extended periods are components of high quality vocabulary
instruction (Kamil, 2008).
Vocabulary is developed through extensive reading (Boardman, et
al., 2008).
There are different types of vocabulary that students need.
However, the most
important type for improvement of the reading process is reading
vocabulary, which are
words, used and recognized in print (McKeown & Curtis,
2014). Students lacking a vast
reading vocabulary are unable to build fluency and comprehension
(Cain & Oakhill,
2014; McKeown & Curtis, 2014). Students can receive explicit
vocabulary instruction
through a variety of methods such as, modeling, reading to
others, and using context
clues. It is important to use more than the dictionary as the
sole source of learning new
and unfamiliar words (Texas Reading Initiative, 2002). Students
can also learn
vocabulary through oral language and listening to adults read to
and with them.
Vocabulary instruction should be a daily practice within the
reading blocks as well as
integrated into other subject areas (Cain & Oakhill, 2014;
McKeown & Curtis, 2014).
Comprehension. The NRP (2000) found that comprehension is
foundational to
the development of reading skills. Reading comprehension is the
understanding of the
meaning of text (Wallot, O’Brien, Haussmann, Kloos, & Lyby,
2014). Comprehension is
described as active and intentional thinking, in which meaning
is constructed through
interactions between text and reader (Durkin, 1978). It is the
final goal of reading
instruction. All academic learning is affected by the ability to
comprehend written text.
Text comprehension refers to gaining meaning from text (Kim,
2015; Macedo-
Rouet, Braasch, Britt, & Rouet 2013; Wallot et al., 2014).
Students will not master the
reading process completely, if they do not master comprehension
of text. Good readers
will use reading as a means to gain understanding, information,
and pure enjoyment of a
-
26
good story. Comprehension is the whole purpose for reading. It
should be taught
explicitly for students to learn comprehension strategies (Kim,
2015; Macedo-Rouet et
al., 2013; Wallot et al., 2014). Explicit comprehension
instruction includes modeling,
graphic organizers, summarizing, and story retelling using a
combination of literature and
expository text (Kim, 2015; Macedo-Rouet et al., 2013; Wallot et
al., 2014).
Factors that Affect Reading Skills of Students
Teachers. Teachers are fundamental to any student success.
Several studies have
confirmed effective teachers play the most important role in
their students’ acquisition of
effective reading skills, more so than the curriculum materials,
pedagogical approaches,
or the programs used to deliver instruction (Allington, 2002).
Teachers are vital to the
success of students acquiring effective reading skills. To
facilitate learning, it is not
enough that the teachers know how to teach the subjects.
Teachers need to know how to
keep and maintain students’ ability and skills through
motivation (De Naeghel et al.,
2014; Lerkkanen et al., 2012; Le Fevre, 2014). If the teachers
do not possess such skills,
students’ successful education could be at stake (De Naeghel et
al., 2014; Lerkkanen et
al., 2012; Le Fevre, 2014).
Teachers are often called upon to use and evaluate instructional
designs and
material to provide effective learning opportunities for
students (Critchfield & Twyman,
2014). A challenge in the process of successful learning is the
proper or improper use of
instructional designs and materials (Critchfield & Twyman,
2014). Improper use of
instructional designs may lead to problems pertaining to the
students’ cultural and cross-
cultural diversity such as language barriers, unavailability of
resources, and lower levels
of interest toward the subject matter (Critchfield & Twyman,
2014). Meanwhile, the use
-
27
of different visual aids and other forms of instructional
materials also greatly affects the
student’s learning. If an educational institution could not
provide appropriate teaching
materials and equipment, and a place conducive to learning,
facilitation of education may
not be as fast or successful as schools that could provide these
resources (Critchfield &
Twyman, 2014).
Good teachers seek ways to teach and motivate students to read.
Good teachers
understand that they do not know it all and will continue to
learn through professional
development (De Naeghel et al., 2014; Lerkkanen et al., 2012; Le
Fevre, 2014).
Professional development is a catalyst that begins the process
to the improvement of
student achievement (Phillips, Nichols, Rupley, Paige, &
Rasinski, 2016; Hollenbeck &
Kalchman, 2013). Effective professional development includes
teachers’ understanding
how to teach, understanding the subject matter, understanding
how students learn, and
how best to present the body of knowledge (Phillips et al.,
2016; Hollenbeck &
Kalchman, 2013).
Moreover, studies found that professional development focused on
academic
content and curriculum and aligned with standards-based reform
could lead to
improvements in the ability of teachers to teach reading skills
(Hollenbeck & Kalchman,
2013; Phillips et al., 2016). To accomplish this task, a variety
of trainings need to be
offered focused on the content and curriculum aligned to the
standards with an emphasis
on effective teaching practices (Collins, 2013; Connor et al.,
2013). To be successful,
these elements must be present in the professional development
programs: coherent
policies, integrated professional development, effective
leadership, student and teacher
partnerships, and sufficient resources (Collins, 2013; Connor et
al., 2013). Teachers need
-
28
time to collaborate and learn together to improve their
instructional practices (Collins,
2013; Connor et al., 2013).
More Instructional Time. Students who struggle with reading need
more
instructional reading time to become proficient in the reading
process. Even though less
than half the day is spent reading and students are engaged in a
variety of reading
activities, much of that time is not spent on reading
instruction (Wanzek, et al., 2013).
Elementary students need at least 90 minutes of reading
instruction daily and students
who struggle in reading need an additional 25-30 minutes of
reading instruction added to
the school day (Wanzek, et al., 2013).
Students need time for activities that allow them to hear an
effective reading
model, to read together, and to read independently (Rasinski,
2008; Vaughn & Wanzek,
2014). Many schools struggle to find additional time during the
regular school day;
however, there are other options that should be considered to
afford those students more
time (Rasinki, 2008; Vaughn & Wanzek, 2014). Additional time
can be provided with
after school programs, summer school programs, and extended
school years (Rasinski,
2008; Vaughn & Wanzek, 2014). The success of using time
outside the school day is
presenting instruction in different and engaging ways to
maintain student interest.
Reviews of research on summer school show that high quality
programs can make a
difference in student learning (Rasinski, 2008; Vaughn &
Wanzek, 2014). The results
from the findings indicated programs that target corrective or
accelerated learning can
affect student learning positively. There is also evidence that
summer school can
improve struggling students’ reading skills and prevent loss of
learning in other subjects
-
29
(Rasinski, 2008; Vaughn & Wanzek, 2014). While additional
time is important, what is
more important is what teachers accomplish with that time.
Student Characteristics. Apart from the teachers, curriculum,
and classroom, the
characteristics of the students can affect how they acquire
reading skills effectively
(Chansa-Kabali & Westerholm, 2014; Kim & Quinn, 2013;
Lesaux, 2012). Recent
findings from studies suggested that many children who come from
homes that are
economically disadvantaged might have a motivation problem that
keeps them from
doing well in school. It is this motivation problem, and not the
seeming inability of the
students to perform, that reflects in their report cards and
standardized test scores
(Chansa-Kabali & Westerholm, 2014; Kim & Quinn, 2013;
Lesaux, 2012).
Various researchers have indicated a correlation between
disadvantaged children
and poor reading scores (Harris & Butaud, 2016; Herbers et
al., 2012; Votruba-Drzai,
Miller, & Coley, 2015). Many of these children come from
homes that do not have
access to many books, and have limited money. These
disadvantages keep children from
reaching their potential because they simply do not have access
to information and
learning activities that more affluent children enjoy (Harris
& Butaud, 2016; Herbers et
al., 2012; Votruba-Drzai, et al., 2015).
How well children are able to regulate their own behavior is
also very important
to how well and easily they learn to read. Children with poor
self-regulation will
consistently do worse than children with good self-regulation,
all other factors being
constant (Schünemann, Spörer, & Brunstein, 2013). There is
evidence that parents have
a great effect on their child's reading ability, especially in
earlier, more formative years
(Hornery, Seaton, Tracey, Craven, & Yeung, 2014; Silinskas
et al., 2012; Sim,
-
30
Berthelsen, Walker, Nicholson, & Fielding-Barnsley, 2014).
Parents who read to their
children or let their children read to them are helping to show
them a love of books,
encouraging them to take an interest in discovering information
for themselves (Hornery,
et al., 2014; Sim, et al., 2014; Silinskas et al., 2012).
Teaching Methods. Various teaching methods can improve reading
skills of
students. Using graphics is becoming more popular as one way of
teaching children to
read and keep students interested in the world of words (Duke et
al., 2013). Some
children learn better when they can see how the words on the
page apply to real-life
scenarios. Graphics provide a clear picture of what is being
presented in the text, and
help foster an understanding of the words that are being read
(Hochpöchler et al., 2012
Rajan, 2013). Another goal of this approach is to help the
reader memorize the
information that they read more easily so that it can be
recalled on tests and other events
(Hochpöchler et al., 2012; Rajan, 2013). Children who have
problems with
memorization can learn more and retain more by using graphics
(Hochpöchler et al.,
2012; Rajan, 2013).
A study relating to the visual impressions of written words as
an art form, like
dance or music, was an effective teaching method for struggling
readers (Cleveland,
2015; Martinez & Harmon, 2015; Rowland, 2014). Students
allowed to draw their visual
representations of what they read consistently fared better at
reading, and showed more
interest in reading stories, than others who were not allowed
this visualization exercise
(Cleveland, 2015; Martinez & Harmon, 2015; Rowland, 2014).
The authors of the study
suggested performing plays, writing poetry, and drawing pictures
of what children read or
-
31
had read to them, may be beneficial when used as a teaching
method for children who
were having trouble learning to read well.
Apart from the use of graphic tools and visual aids, a general
consensus has been
reached by researchers that children need more one-on-one time
with teachers or other
adults when they are learning to read (Jennings et al., 2015;
Tracey et al., 2014). Since
reading is the foundational skill used in all subjects, it is
vitally and fundamentally
important that children acquire the skill early in life and
continue to practice it as they
grow up (Jennings, McDowell, Carrol, Bohn-Gettler, 2015; Tracey,
Hornery, Seaton,
Carven, & Yeung, 2014). Without enough one-on-one time, and
without enough interest
in reading, a love for reading will never be created in these
children, and they will
struggle with many other subjects throughout their lives because
they cannot read the
textbooks well enough to understand other subjects (Jennings et
al., 2015; Tracey et al.,
2014).
Although teachers provide individualized reading instruction for
improved student
learning, computerized programs offer supplementary support to
develop reading skills
(Schechter et al., 2015). School systems in this country have
implemented computerized
programs to help children learn to read (Khan & Gorard,
2012; Taylor, Spichtig, &
Radach, 2016; Wood et al., 2012). The use of software as a
teaching method has been
found to be effective in increasing reading skills of students
(Khan & Gorard, 2012;
Taylor, Spichtig, & Radach, 2016; Wood et al., 2012). Many
schools use software
programs to assess the needs of individual students and to allow
students to work at their
own pace so that those who read poorly are not left behind (Khan
& Gorard, 2012; Taylor
et al., 2016; Wood et al., 2012). Computer software provides
students with poor reading
-
32
skills a chance to catch up, and improve reading skills of
students who are better readers
(Khan & Gorard, 2012; Taylor et al.; Wood et al., 2012).
Federal Initiatives to Improve Reading Instruction
Reading Excellence Act. The Reading Excellence Act (REA) of 1999
was a
federal initiative designed specifically to improve reading
instruction. The Republican
majority in Congress introduced this act in an effort to improve
the reading skills of our
nations’ students in kindergarten through third grade by using
scientifically based
research in reading instruction. The REA (1999) was the first to
use the phrase
scientifically based reading research (SBRR). The REA described
SBRR as the
application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to
obtain valid knowledge
relevant to reading development, reading instruction, and
reading difficulties upon
approval by a panel of independent experts or a peer-reviewed
journal (REA, 1999).
States provided competitive grants to improve students’ reading
skills by implementing
the findings of SBRR to guide their reading curriculum and
instruction. States were
required to verify REA funds were used for educational reading
programs developed
from SBRR.
SBRR refers to practices that have demonstrated to be effective
in improving
reading achievement. The effectiveness is manifested in two
ways, through research-
study data collected through a rigorous design, and by consensus
among expert
practitioners who have evaluated and followed up these outcomes
as part of their
practice. All results must be valid and reliable and come from a
variety of sources (REA,
1999). This Act provided the scientific foundation for the
inclusion of this term in future
-
33
educational policies. It paved the way for the adoption of the
No Child Left Behind
Initiative of 2001 and its Reading First component (Edmondson,
2005).
No Child Left Behind and Reading First Initiative. The NCLB Act
of 2001
was passed by congress with bipartisan support. This enactment
was a strategy to gain
educational improvement in the United States. It was a
reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 (No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001). The
NCLB placed intense pressure on schools and teachers to find
methods to ensure every
child was proficient in the areas of reading and mathematics.
The federal NCLB Act
required states to identify state standards, which are the
foundational skills students
should master at particular grade levels and to give annual
assessments in reading, math,
and science based on these state standards. This process
identified students who did and
did not meet proficiency standards and the schools that were
failing to make Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) (Dee & Jacobs, 2010). The attainment
of AYP was a cornerstone
of the NCLB legislation (Linn, 2003). Schools where students did
not achieve AYP were
subject to imposed sanctions. Schools who achieved AYP status
were issued rewards.
School improvement was the major goal of the NCLB policy
regarding
accountability and student achievement. Sanctions and rewards
served as the foundation
for this approach. The main consideration was that negative
consequences were linked to
standardized test performance and therefore would encourage
teachers and students in
low performing schools to work harder in achieving a certain
level of proficiency and
fluency in reading (Nichols, Glass, & Berliner, 2012).
Studies demonstrated that relying
on standardized tests was not effective because these tests had
little relationship to
reading achievement (Braun, Wang, Jenkins, & Weinbaum, 2006;
Figlio & Ladd, 2008;
-
34
Nichols et al., 2012). Questions were raised regarding the
relationship between
standardized tests and increasing student learning. The findings
from these studies
suggested the problem of students with low reading scores
persisted despite mandated
standardized tests.
NCLB was built on four principles: accountability for results,
more choices for
parents, greater local control and flexibility, and an emphasis
on doing what works based
on empirical research. This law holds districts accountable for
the academic progress of
their students in math and reading. Closing the achievement gap
between students of
specific race, gender, and socio-economic level subgroups and
students in the majority
population was one of the intentions of NCLB (No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001; U.S.
Department of Education, 2003). The Act was also designed to
make sure students were
taught by effective teachers with the use of research-based
instructional materials.
Designed to boost students’ academic gains, NCLB demanded
heightened
attention be placed on teacher professional development.
Professional development
ensured their understanding of effective instructional
strategies founded upon
scientifically based reading research (NCLB 2001). The law’s
main focus was to
improve the reading skills of students in the primary grades
(McLauglin, 2012).
According to the law, this would need to be accomplished by
schools and teachers using
scientifically based reading instruction and material. The
theoretical concepts supporting
the reading portion of the NCLB act was based on the Report of
the National Reading
Panel: Teaching Children to Read (U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services,
2000a) presented to congress in early 2000 (NICHD, 2000; U.S.
Department of
Education, 2003). The five foundational reading skills, phonemic
awareness, phonics,
-
35
vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension highlighted by the report
were identified as the
focus of early reading instruction (Boardman et al., 2008).
Nationally, NCLB focused on the importance of reading
proficiently by the end of
third grade. In a determination to meet the requirements of the
law, schools across the
nation dedicated their efforts to realign and reorganize reading
curriculum and instruction
to employ instructional practices based upon scientifically
based research (Biancarosa &
Snow, 2006). A reading initiative authorized by NCLB, Reading
First, was put into place
to ensure all students, regardless of ethnicity or socioeconomic
status, received
scientifically based reading instruction enabling all students
to be able to read by the end
of third grade (U.S. Department of Education, 2009).
NCLB and the Reading First legislation were written as a guide
to make certain
all children could read at grade level by the end of third
grade. The NCLB component of
using scientifically based instructional reading programs was a
significant factor in how
funds were spent in school districts. Funds provided by the
Reading First legislation
were dedicated to schools with a high percentage of students in
poverty. The funds were
to be used to provide reading instruction based on the NRP’s
five foundational reading
skills, phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and
comprehension, in the
form of federal grants (Courtade et al., 2014; Torgesen et al.,
2006; U.S. Department of
Education, 2009). Across the nation, the NRP’s research had a
strong impact on
instructional reading practices and decisions, because the
distribution of federal funds to
schools depended on compliance with the NRP’s findings (Pressley
& Fingeret, 2007;
Wilson, Martens, Arya, & Altwerger, 2004). Under the Reading
First guidelines,
-
36
programs that did not comply with the panel’s guidelines
focusing on the five areas of
reading were considered inappropriate.
Scientifically Based Reading Interventions
The positive effects of early and targeted reading interventions
for students with
learning disabilities or at-risk of having inefficiencies have
been documented in several
studies (Cavanaugh, Kim, Wanzek, & Vaughn, 2004; Vaughn
& Wanzek, 2014;
Boardman et al., 2008). It is important to have reading
interventions tailored to the needs
of students and involve appropriate resources to address those
needs (Burns & Gibbons,
2008). Targeted intervention components that provided an
appropriate level of challenge
for the individual student, focused on explicitly teaching a
specific skill, were highly
effective (Burns & Gibbons, 2008). Instructional material
that gave students many
opportunities to respond and provided immediate corrective
feedback were important
features of effective interventions (Burns & Gibbons
2008).
Reading interventions should attend to the motivational needs of
students.
Students who have experienced repeated failure in reading are
likely to have less
motivation to read or put effort into learning new strategies
for reading (Minskoff, 2005;
Morgan, Fuchs, Compton, Cordray, & Fuchs, 2008). It is
imperative to include
components aimed at increasing motivation when designing an
intervention for struggling
readers. Effective scientifically based interventions engaging
to students are important
for helping students gain foundational reading skills.
A growing number of computer software programs have been
designed to provide
SBRR intervention. The programs were developed to deliver
reading instruction and
practice that was once only available from teachers. Advances in
technology such as
-
37
high-quality sound, digitized speech, colorful graphics, and
interactive design created to
hold students’ attention and motivation add to the instructional
value of computer
software programs (Silver-Pacuilla, Ruedel, Mistrett, 2004). The
benefits of using
computer software programs allowed students to work at their own
pace and instructional
level, while, providing opportunities for individual feedback
and motivation, and needed
drill and practice (Hattie, 2009). Even though the research
exploring the effectiveness of
computer software programs on reading instruction increased
there continued to be
considerable need for research in this area. As school leaders
make decisions about
instruction provided by computer software programs it is
important to reflect and
evaluate whether the interventions attempted have met the goal
of raising student
achievement in reading (Clarke, 2002).
Computer Assisted Instruction
Computer usage is of high interest for students, which can
assist in student
engagement, aid in positive attitudes toward learning, and
provide a medium for
deliberative practice and feedba